Full report

Original page 1

NASA-TM-109098 19940028330 /A'A "-7"- / i_ ,' / NASA/DoDAerospaceKnowledge Diffusion Research Project Report Number 25 NASA Technical Memorandum 109098 The Technical Communications Practicesof British Aerospace Engineers and Scientists: Results of the Phase4 RAeS Mail Survey Thomas E. Pinelli NASALangleyResearchCenter Hampton,Virginb RebeccaO. Barclay RensselaerPolytechnicInstitute Troy,New York JohnM. Kennedy IndianaUniversity BloomingtonIndiana, May 1994 ______ --------_ LIBRARYCOPY ___--- JUR2 2 199, LANGLEYRESEARCHCENTER LIBRARYNASA HAMPTON,VIRGINIA N/_A NationalAeronautics and Space Administration Department of Defense INDIANA UNIVERSITY

Original page 2

Original page 3

Illl [iiiiiiiiiiliii 3 1176 01408 7788 THE TECHNICAL COMMUNICATIONS PRACTICES OF BRITISH AEROSPACE ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS: RESULTS OF THE PHASE 4 RAeS MAIL SURVEY Thomas E. Pinelli, Rebecca O. Barclay, and John M. Kennedy ABSTRACT The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded research and development (R&D) are transferred to the U.S. aerospace industry. However, little is known about this information product in terms of its actual use, importance, and value in the transfer of federally funded R&D. Little is also known about the intermediary-based system that is used to transfer the results of federally funded R&D to the U.S. aerospace industry. To help establish a body of knowledge, the U.S. government technical report is being investigated as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. In this report, we summarize the literature on technical reports, present a model that depicts the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D via the U.S. government technical report, and present the results of research that investigated aerospace knowledge diffusion vis-a-vis the technical communications practices of British aerospace engineers and scientists. INTRODUCTION NASA and the DoD maintain scientific and technical information (STI) systems for acquiring, processing, announcing, publishing, performed and government-sponsored research. and transferring the results of government- Within both the NASA and DoD STI systems, the U.S. government technical report is considered a primary mechanism for transferring the results of this research to the U.S. aerospace community. However, McClure (1988) concludes that we actually know little about the role, importance, and impact of the technical report in the transfer of federally funded R&D because little empirical information about this product is available. We are examining the system(s) used to diffuse the results of federally funded aerospace R&D as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. This project investigates, among other things, the information-seeking behavior of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, the factors that influence the use of STI, and the role played by U.S. government technical reports in the diffusion of federally funded aerospace STI (Pinelli, Kennedy, and Barclay, 1991; Pinelli, Kennedy, Barclay, and White, 1991). The results of this investigation could (1) advance the development of practical theory, (2) contribute to the design and development of aerospace information systems, and (3) have practical implications for transferring the results of federally funded aerospace R&D to the U.S. aerospace community. The project fact sheet is Appendix A.

Original page 4

In this report, we summarize the literature on technical reports, provide a model that depicts the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D through the U.S. government technical report, and present the results of the Phase 4 RAeS mail survey. We summarize the findings of the Phase 4 RAeS mail survey in terms of the technical communications practices of British aerospace engineers and scientists. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT Although they have the potential for increasing technological innovation, productivity, and economic competitiveness, U.S. government technical reports may not be utilized because of limitations in the existing transfer mechanism. According to Ballard, et al., (1986), the current system "virtually guarantees that much of the Federal investment in creating STI will not be paid back in terms of tangible products and innovations." They further state that "a more active and coordinated role in STI transfer is needed at the Federal level if technical reports are to be better utilized." Characteristics of Technical Reports The definition of the technical report varies because the report serves different roles in communication within and between organizations. The technical report has been defined etymologically, according to report content and method (U.S. Department of Defense, 1964); behaviorally, according to the influence on the reader (Ronco, et al., 1964); and rhetorically, according to the function of the report within a system for communicating STI (Mathes and Stevenson, 1976). The boundaries of technical report literature are difficult to establish because of wide variations in the content, purpose, and audience being addressed. The nature of the report -- whether it is informative, analytical, or assertive -- contributes to the difficulty. Fry (1953) points out that technical reports are heterogenous, appearing in many shapes, sizes, layouts, and bindings. According to Smith (1981), "Their formats vary; they might be brief (two pages) or lengthy (500 pages). They appear as microfiche, computer printouts or vugraphs, and often they are loose leaf (with periodic changes that need to be inserted) or have a paper cover, and often contain foldouts. They slump on the shelf, their staples or prong fasteners snag other documents on the shelf, and they are not neat." Technical reports may exhibit some or all of the following characteristics (Gibb and Phillips, 1979; Subramanyam, 1981): • Publication is not through the publishing trade. • Readership/audience is usually limited. • Distribution may be limited or restricted. 2

Original page 5

• Content may include statistical data, catalogs, directions, design criteria, conference papers and proceedings, literature reviews, or bibliographies. • Publication may involve a variety of printing and binding methods. The SATCOM report (National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of Engineering, 1969) lists the following characteristics of the technical report: • It is written for an individual or organization that has the right to require such reports. • It is basically a stewardship report to some agency that has funded the research being reported. • It permits prompt dissemination of data results on a typically flexible distribution basis. • It can convey the total research story, including exhaustive exposition, detailed tables, ample illustrations, and full discussion of unsuccessful approaches. History and Growth of the U.S. Government Technical Report The development of the [U.S. government] technical report as a major means of communicating the results of R&D, according to Godfrey and Redman (1973), dates back to 1941 and the establishment of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD). Further, the growth of the U.S. government technical report coincides with the expanding role of the Federal government in science and technology during the post World War II era. However, U.S. government technical reports have existed for several decades. The Bureau of Mines Reports of Investigation (Redman, 1965/66), the Professional Papers of the United States Geological Survey, and the Technological Papers of the National Bureau of Standards (Auger, 1975) are early examples of U.S. government technical reports. Perhaps the first U.S. government publications officially created to document the results of federally funded (U.S.) R&D were the technical reports first published by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) in 1917. Auger (1975) states that "the history of technical report literature in the U.S. coincides almost entirely with the development of aeronautics, the aviation industry, and the creation of the NACA, which issued its first report in 1917." In her study, Information Transfer in Engineering, Shuchman (1981) reports that 75 percent of the engineers she surveyed used technical reports; that technical reports were important to engineers doing applied work; and that aerospace engineers, more than any other group of engineers, referred to technical reports. However, in many of these studies, including Shuchman's, it is often unclear whether U.S. government technical reports, non-U.S, government technical reports, or both are included. The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded R&D are made available to the scientific community and are added to the literature of

Original page 6

science and technology (President's Special Assistant for Science and Technology, 1962). McClure (1988) points out that "although the [U.S.] government technical report has been variously reviewed, compared, and contrasted, there is no real knowledge base regarding the role, production, use, and importance [of this information product] in terms of accomplishing this task." Our analysis of the literature supports the following conclusions reached by McClure: • The body of available knowledge is simply inadequate and noncomparable to determine the role that the U.S. government technical report plays in transferring the results of federally funded R&D. • Further, most of the available knowledge is largely anecdotal, limited in scope and dated, and unfocused in the sense that it lacks a conceptual framework. • The available knowledge does not lend itself to developing "normalized" answers to questions regarding U.S. government technical reports. THE TRANSFER OF FEDERALLY FUNDED AEROSPACE R&D AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT Three paradigms -- appropriability, dissemination, and diffusion -- have dominated the transfer of federally funded (U.S.) R&D (Ballard, et al., 1989; Williams and Gibson, 1990). Whereas variations of them have been tried within different agencies, overall Federal (U.S.) STI transfer activities continue to be driven by a "supply-side," dissemination model. The Appropriability Model The appropriability model emphasizes the production of knowledge by the Federal government that would not otherwise be produced by the private sector and competitive market pressures to promote the use of that knowledge. This model emphasizes the production of basic research as the driving force behind technological development and economic growth and assumes that the Federal provision of R&D will be rapidly assimilated by the private sector. Deliberate transfer mechanisms and intervention by information intermediaries are viewed as unnecessary. Appropriability stresses the supply (production) of knowledge in sufficient quantity to attract potential users. Good technologies, according to this model, sell themselves and offer clear policy recommendations regarding Federal priorities for improving technological development and economic growth. This model incorrectly assumes that the results of federally funded R&D will be acquired and used by the private sector, ignores the fact that most basic research is irrelevant to technological innovation, and dismisses the process of technological innovation within the firm. The Dissemination Model The dissemination model emphasizes the need to transfer information to potential users and embraces the belief that the production of quality knowledge is not sufficient to ensure its fullest

Original page 7

use. Linkage mechanisms, such as information intermediaries, are needed to identify useful knowledge and to transfer it to potential users. This model assumes that if these mechanisms are available to link potential users with knowledge producers, then better opportunities exist for users to determine what knowledge is available, acquire it, and apply it to their needs. The strength of this model rests on the recognition that STI transfer and use are critical elements of the process of technological innovation. Its weakness lies in the fact that it is passive, for it does not take users into consideration except when they enter the system and request assistance. The dissemination model employs one-way, source-to-user transfer procedures that are seldom responsive in the user context. User requirements are seldom known or considered in the design of information products and services. The Knowledge Diffusion Model The knowledge diffusion model is grounded in theory and practice associated with the diffusion of innovation and planned change research and the clinical models of social research and mental health. Knowledge diffusion emphasizes "active" intervention as opposed to dissemination and access; stresses intervention and reliance on interpersonal communications as a means of identifying and removing interpersonal barriers between users and producers; and assumes that knowledge production, transfer, and use are equally important components of the R&D process. This approach also emphasizes the link between producers, transfer agents, and users and seeks to develop user-oriented mechanisms (e.g., products and services) specifically tailored to the needs and circumstances of the user. It makes the assumption that the results of federally funded R&D will be under utilized unless they are relevant to users and ongoing relationships are developed among users and producers. The problem with the knowledge diffusion model is that (1) it requires a large Federal role and presence and (2) it runs contrary to the dominant assumptions of established Federal R&D policy. Although U.S. technology policy relies on a "dissemination-oriented" approach to STI transfer, other industrialized nations, such as Germany and Japan, are adopting "diffusion-oriented" policies which increase the power to absorb and employ new technologies productively (Branscomb, 1991; Branscomb, 1992). The Transfer of (U.S.) Federally-Funded Aerospace R&D A model depicting the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D through the U.S. government technical report appears in figure 1. The model is composed of two parts -- the informal that relies on collegial contacts and the formal that relies on surrogates, information producers, and information intermediaries to complete the "producer to user" transfer process. When U.S. government (i.e., NASA) technical reports are published, the initial or primary distribution is made to libraries and technical information centers. Copies are sent to surrogates for secondary and subsequent distribution. A limited number of copies are set aside to be used by the author for the "scientist-to-scientist" exchange of information at the collegial level.

Original page 8

, Surrogates Producers • DTIC • DoD oCAB • DROLS • NASA _ • CASI • DoD/NAS,_ • STAR contractors • RECON & grantees • NTIS • GRA & I • NTIS file Formal Informal (Collegial) Y Y Information Users Intermediaries • Aerospace • Librarians engineers and scientists • Gatekeepers • Aerospace • Linking engineering agents faculty and J students • Knowledge brokers Figure 1. The U.S. Government Technical Report in a Model Depicting the Dissemination of Federally Funded Aerospace R&D. Surrogates serve as technical report repositories or clearinghouses for the producers and include the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), the NASA Center for Aero Space Information (CASI), and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). These surrogates have created a variety of technical report announcement journals such as CAB (Current Awareness Bibliographies), STAR (Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports), and GRA&I (Government Reports Announcement and Index) and computerized retrieval systems such as DROLS (Defense RDT&E Online System), RECON (REsearch CONnection), and NTIS On-line that permit online access to technical report data bases. Information intermediaries are, in large part, librarians and technical information specialists in academia, government, and industry. Those representing the producers serve as what McGowan and Loveless (1981) describe as "knowledge brokers" or "linking agents." Information intermediaries connected with users act, according to Allen (1977), as "technological entrepreneurs" or "gatekeepers." The more "active" the intermediary, the more effective the transfer process becomes (Goldhor and Lund, 1983). Active intermediaries move information from the producer to the user, often utilizing interpersonal (i.e., face-to-face) communication in the process. Passive information intermediaries, on the other hand, "simply array information for the taking, relying on the initiative of the user to request or search out the information that may be needed" (Eveland, 1987). The overall problem with the total Federal STI system is that "the present system for transferring the results of federally funded STI is passive, fragmented, and unfocused;" effective knowledge transfer is hindered by the fact that the Federal government "has no coherent or systematically designed approach to transferring the results of federally funded R&D to the user" (Ballard, et al., 1986). In their study of issues and options in Federal STI, Bikson and her colleagues (1984) found that many of the interviewees believed "dissemination activities were

Original page 9

afterthoughts, undertaken without serious commitment by Federal agencies whose primary concerns were with [knowledge] production and not with knowledge transfer;" therefore, "much of what has been learned about [STI] and knowledge transfer has not been incorporated into federally supported information transfer activities." Problematic to the informal part of the system is that knowledge users can learn from collegial contacts only what those contacts happen to know. Ample evidence supports the claim that no one researcher can know about or keep up with all the research in his/her area(s) of interest. Like other members of the scientific community, aerospace engineers and scientists are faced with the problem of too much information to know about, to keep up with, and to screen. Further, information is becoming more interdisciplinary in nature and more international in scope. Two problems exist with the formal part of the system. First, the formal part of the system employs one-way, source-to-user transmission. The problem with this kind of transmission is that such formal one-way, "supply side" transfer procedures do not seem to be responsive to the user context (Bikson, et al., 1984). Rather, these efforts appear to start with an information system into which the users' requirements are retrofit (Adam, 1975). The consensus of the findings from the empirical research is that interactive, two-way communications are required for effective information transfer (Bikson, et al., 1984). Second, the formal part relies heavily on information intermediaries to complete the knowledge transfer process. However, a strong methodological base for measuring or assessing the effectiveness of the information intermediary is lacking (Beyer and Trice, 1982). In addition, empirical data on the effectiveness of information intermediaries and the role(s) they play in knowledge transfer are sparse and inconclusive. The impact of information intermediaries is likely to be strongly conditional and limited to a specific institutional context. According to Roberts and Frohman (1978), most Federal approaches to knowledge utilization have been ineffective in stimulating the diffusion of technological innovation. They claim that the numerous Federal STI programs are "highest in frequency and expense yet lowest in impact" and that Federal "information dissemination activities have led to little documented knowledge utilization." Roberts and Frohman also note that "governmental programs start to encourage utilization of knowledge only after the R&D results have been generated" rather than during the idea development phase of the innovation process. David (1986), Mowery (1983), and Mowery and Rosenberg (1979) conclude that successful [Federal]technological innovation rests more with the transfer and utilization of knowledge than with its production. THE INFORMATION-SEEKING BEHAVIOR OF ENGINEERS The information-seeking behavior of engineers and scientists has been variously studied by information and social scientists, the earliest studies having been undertaken in the late 1960s (Pinelli, 1991). The results of these studies have not accumulated to form a significant body of knowledge that can be used to develop a general theory regarding the information-seeking

Original page 10

behavior of engineers and scientists. The difficulty in applying the results of these studies has been attributed to the lack of a unifying theory, a standardized methodology, and common definitions (Rohde, 1986). Despite the fact that numerous "information use" studies have been conducted, the information-seeking behavior of engineers and information use in engineering are neither broadly known nor well understood. There are a number of reasons (Berul, et al., 1965): (1) many of the studies were conducted for narrow or specific purposes in unique environments such as experimental laboratories; (2) many, if not most, of them focused on scientists exclusively or engineers working in a research environment; (3) few studies have concentrated on engineers, especially engineers working in manufacturing and production; (4) from an information use standpoint, some engineering disciplines have yet to be studied; (5) most of the studies have concentrated on the users' use of information in terms of a library and/or specific information packages such as professional journals rather than how users produce, transfer, and use information; and (6) many of the studies, as previously stated, were not methodologically sophisticated and few included testable hypotheses or valid procedures for testing the study's hypotheses. Further, we know very little about the diffusion of knowledge in specific communities such as aerospace. In the past 25 years, few studies have been devoted to understanding the information environment in which aerospace engineers and scientists work, the information-seeking behavior of aerospace engineers and scientists, and the factors that influence the use of federally funded aerospace STI. Presumably, the results of such studies would have implications for current and future aerospace STI systems and for making decisions regarding the transfer and use of federally funded aerospace STI. The literature related to aerospace and Europe produced some noteworthy findings. Raitt (1984) investigated the patterns of information seeking and use among engineers and scientists working in the European Space Agency (ESA). He compared the findings of his investigation with data collected from other international organizations and government-oriented aerospace organizations. Picken (1988) examined the organization and use of library and information services in the aerospace industry. Of particular interest to Picken was the organization and use of aerospace library and information services in the United Kingdom (UK). B.R. Coles and his colleagues looked at the scientific, technical, and medical (STM) information system in the UK (Royal Society, 1993). A related study looked at the economic relationships which exist in the STM information system in the UK (DJB Associates, 1993). RESULTS OF THE PHASE 4 RAeS MAIL SURVEY This research was conducted as a Phase 4 activity of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Members of the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) were surveyed in an attempt to investigate the technical communications practices of aerospace engineers and scientists in the UK. A self-administered (self-reported) survey was used for data collection. A random selection of 1,487 members were surveyed. The adjusted response rate was 75

Original page 11

percent. Data were collected between October 1991 and February 1992. The RAeS questionnaire is Appendix B. Demographics The following composite participant profile was based on RAeS survey data which appear as table 1: works in industry (45%) or other (32%); works in other (28%), as a manager (22%), or in design/development (20%), has a high national certificate/diploma (25%) or a bachelor's degree (31%), was educated (trained) as an engineer (81%), currently works as an engineer (59%), and has an average of 23 years of professional work experience. Project, Task, or Problem Survey participants were asked to categorize the most important job-related project, task, or problem they had worked on in the past 6 months. The categories and responses are listed in table 2. A majority of the job-related projects, tasks, and problems were categorized as either design/development (31.2%) or management (21.9%). About 14% of the job-related projects, tasks, and problems were categorised as research and about 14% were categorised as other. Most respondents (84%) worked with others (did not work alone) in completing their most important job-related project, task, or problem. The average number of people per group was 8.95. About 49% of the respondents performed engineering duties while working on their most important job-related project, task, or problem. About 45% performed management duties. Project, Task, or Problem Complexity and Uncertainty. Respondents were asked to rate the overall complexity of their most important job-related project, task, or problem. The mean complexity score was 3.68 (of a possible 5.00). Respondents were also asked to rate the amount of technical uncertainty they faced when they started their most important project, task, or problem. The average (mean) technical uncertainty score was 3.20 (of a possible 5.00). Correlation coefficients (Pearson's r) were calculated to compare (1) the overall "level of project, task, or problem complexity" and "technical uncertainty" and (2) the level of "project, task, or problem complexity by category" and "technical uncertainty." The correlation coefficients appear in table 3. Positive and significant correlations were found for both comparisons. These findings support the hypothesis that'there is a (positive) relationship between technical uncertainty and complexity. Project, Task, or Problem and Information Use. Respondents were asked the identify which of the following information sources they used to complete their most important job-related project, task, or problem: (1) used personal store of technical information, (2) spoke with coworkers inside the organization, (3) spoke with colleagues outside of the organization, (4) used literature resources in the organization's library, and (5) spoke with a librarian. They were asked to identify the steps they followed to obtain needed information by sequencing these items (e.g., #1,#2,#3,#4, and #5). The results appear in table 4. 9

Original page 12

Table 1. Survey Demographics [n = 11021 Demographics Do You Currently Work In: Industry Government Academia Other Your Highest Level Of Education: No Degree Ordinary Nat. Certificate/Diploma High Nat. Certificate/Diploma Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree Doctorate Post Doctorate Other Your Years In Aerospace: Less Than 1 Year 1 Through 5 Years 6 Through 10 Years 11 Through 20 Years 21 Through 40 Years 41 Or More Years Mean = 23.39 Median = 25 Years Are You Trained/Educated As An: Engineer Scientist Other % Number 45.4 483 15.2 162 7.6 81 31.8 338 13.5 144 5.9 63 24.5 262 30.6 327 11.8 126 2.8 30 1.2 13 9.6 103 5.8 62 10.8 116 8.0 87 19.0 204 44.3 476 12.0 127 80.8 865 4.3 46 14.9 159 Your Present Professional Duties Classified As An: Eng ineer Scientist Other Is Your Work Best Classified As: Teaching/Academic Research Management Design/Development Manufacturing/Production Service/Maintenance Sales/Marketing Other 58.5 619 4.3 33 14.9 406 5.4 58 5.8 62 22.1 236 20.1 215 2.2 24 13.2 141 3.3 35 28.0 300 10

Original page 13

Table 2. Project, Task Or Problem Categorisation [n = 1102] Categories Of Project, Task Or Problem: Educational Research Design Development Manufacturing/Production Computer Applications Management Other Worked On Project, Task Or Problem: Alone With Others Mean Number Of People Per Group = 8.95 Nature Of Duties Performed: Engineering Science Management Other % Number 6.4 38 13.5 80 16.7 99 14.5 86 6.4 38 6.2 37 21.9 130 14.3 85 16.0 94 84.0 493 48.8 522 26.0 217 45.3 486 33.2 141 Table 3. Correlation of Project Complexity and Technical Uncertainty by Type of Project, Task, or Problem [n =1102] Complexity - Uncertainty Correlation Overall** Education/Research Design Development Manufacturing/Production Management Computer Applications * r values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. r n .38*" 584 .48" 118 .24* 98 .33* 84 .24 38 .39* 128 .22* 36 ** Overall mean complexity (uncertainty) score = 3.68 (3.20) out of a possible 5.00. 11

Original page 14

Table 4. Information Sources Used to Solve Project, Task, or Problem Used First Information Source % Personal Store of Technical Information 50.3 Spoke With Coworker(s) Inside the Organisation 31.5 Spoke With Colleagues Outside of the Organization 7.7 Used Literature Resources in My Organisation's Library 8.0 Spoke With a Librarian/ Technical Information Specialist 1.6 Library Use and Importance Used Used Used Used Not Second Third Fourth Fifth Used % % % % % 21.0 15.6 4.4 1.9 6.8 42.3 15.9 4.2 0.3 5.8 17.2 28.9 11.5 5.6 29.1 11.9 16.6 16.6 6.1 40.8 4.0 9.1 13.6 9.2 62.5 Survey respondents were asked how often they had used their organisation's library in the past 6 months (table 5). A 1 to 5 point scale was used to measure use with "1" being not often and "5" being very often. About 55% indicated that they had used their organisation's library very often; about 14% indicated they had used their organisation's library sometimes and about 31% indicated they had not used their organisation's library often. The average use rating was 3.42. Survey respondents were asked rate the importance their organisation's library in performing their present professional duties (table 5). A 1 to 5 point scale was used to measure importance with "1" being not at all important and "5" being very important. About 56% indicated that their organisation's library was very important in performing their present professional duties, about 22% indicated that their organisation's library was neither important nor unimportant, and about 23% indicated that their organisation's library was not at all important in performing their present professional duties. The average importance rating was 3.63. Technical Reports -- Use, Importance, and Frequency of Use RAeS survey participants were asked several questions designed to obtain a greater understanding of the factors affecting the use of technical reports. In this study, technical reports were placed within the context of two technical information products: conference-meeting papers and 12

Original page 15

journal articles. AGARD, Royal Aerospace Establishment (RAE), in-house, and NASA technical reports were included in this study. Table 5. Use and Importance of the Organisation's Library to British Engineers and Scientists Use Not Often Sometimes Very Often Mean Importance Not At All Important Neither Important Nor Unimportant Very Important Mean RAeS % (n) 31.3 161 13.8 71 54.8 282 3.42 RAeS % (n) 22.7 117 21.6 111 55.7 287 3.63 Use. RAeS survey participants were asked if they used the aforementioned technical information products in performing their present professional duties (table 6). In-house technical reports enjoyed the highest use rate (79%) followed by journal articles (58%) and conferencemeeting papers (50%). AGARD, RAE, and NASA technical reports were used by 21%, 31%, and 23% of the RAeS survey respondents, respectively. Table 6. Use of Technical Information Products By British Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Information Products Conference-Meeting papers Journal Articles AGARD Technical Reports In-house Technical Reports RAE Technical Reports NASA Technical Reports 13 Percentage Number 49.8 299 57.7 316 20.5 123 79.2 475 31.2 187 22.7 136

Original page 16

Importance. RAeS survey participants were asked to indicate "how important is it for you to use the aforementioned technical information products in performing your present professional duties?" Table 7 includes data regarding the importance of use technical information products. A 1 to 5 point scale (1.0 = very unimportant; 5.0 = very important) was used to measure importance. In-house technical reports received the highest importance rating C)= 3.76) followed by conference-meeting papers (X = 2.49) and journal articles ('X = 2.38). The importance ratings for AGARD, RAE, and NASA reports were considerably lower. Table 7. Importance Rating of Technical Information Products by British Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Information Products Conference-Meeting Papers Journal Articles AGARD Technical Reports In-house Technical Reports RAE Technical Reports NASA Technical Reports Mean C) Number 2.49 571 2.38 565 1.70 531 3.76 575 2.00 551 1.78 541 aA 1 to 5 point scalewas used to measureimportance,with "1"beingthe lowestpossibleimportanceand "5" being the highest possible importance. Hence, the higher the average (mean), the greater the importanceof the product. Frequency of Use. RAeS survey participants were asked to indicate the number of times they had used each of the six technical information products in a 6 month period in the performance of their professional duties (table 8). Data are presented both as means and Table 8. Average Number of Times (Median) Technical Information Products Used in a 6 Month Period by British Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Information Products Conference-Meeting Papers Journal Articles AGARD Technical Reports In-house Technical Reports RAE Technical Reports NASA Technical Reports X (Median) Number 3.56 (2.00) 566 3.06 (2.00) 561 0.78 (0.00) 539 16.19 (5.00) 521 1.35 (0.00) 540 2.37 (0.00) 542 medians. In-house technical reports were used (X = 16.19) to a much greater extent than were the other technical information products, followed by conference-meeting papers ('X= 3.56) and 14

Original page 17

journal articles ('X - 3.06). Technical report use was less, with NASA reports being used more than RAE and AGARD reports. The median number of times that AGARD, RAE, and NASA technical reports were used in the past 6 months was 0.00, indicating that the majority of RAeS survey respondents did not use these technical information products during that period. Technical Reports -- Awareness and Acquisition RAeS respondents were asked how they find out about (become aware of) RAE and NASA technical reports and how they obtain (acquire) them. The findings are shown in figure 2 and figure 3. Awareness. RAeS respondents who used RAE and NASA technical reports were asked to indicate the various means by which they find out these reports (figure 2). For presentation and discussion, the awareness choices are grouped into three categories: Producer, which includes announcement journals such as STAR; User, which includes colleagues and coworkers; and Intermediary, which includes interaction with a librarian or technical information specialist. Journal Current Awareness I Publication J Sent by AnnRAEouncement/NASA ..a i i Cited in Publication Referred by Colleague Referred by __Author Intentional Search Accident or Browsing Data Base Search ' ReferredLibrarianby Routetodme by my Library = 0 20I 40I Percent Producer __ II RAE Technical Reports _ D NASA Technical Reports m User -- Intermediary 60I 80I 1 0 Figure 2. How British Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Find Out About RAE and NASA Technical Reports. 15

Original page 18

Minor differences were demonstrated in how British aerospace engineers and scientists find out about RAE and NASA technical reports. User methods dominate awareness choices with "cited in a publication," "referred by a colleague," and "accident or browsing" most frequently selected. Intermediary methods ranked second with "data base search" and "referred by librarian" being selected most frequently. Producer methods ranked third with "announcement journals" such as STAR, and "current awareness publication" being selected most frequently. Acquisition. From a list of seven sources, RAeS respondents were asked how they actually access or obtain copies of RAE and NASA technical reports (figure 3). For presentation and discussion, the acquisition choices have been grouped into three categories: Producer, including sent by author; User, including obtained from a colleague; and Intermediary, including routed to me by my library. Sent by RAE/NASA Sent by Author Requested from Author Obtainedfrom Colleague Requested/Ordered fromLibrary from BLL/DRIC Routed to me Requested/Ordered by my Library I 0 25 / Producer L RAETechnicaReportsl F--_ NASA Technical Reports -- User I I Intermediary __ I I I 50 75 100 Percent Figure 3. How British Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Acquire RAE and NASA Technical Reports. Differences between how RAeS respondents acquire RAE and NASA technical reports include "sent by RAE/NASA," "sent by author," and "requested by author." Overall, User methods dominate access choices with "requested/ordered from my library" and "obtained from a colleague" being selected most frequently (figure 3). Producer methods ranked second for RAE technical reports with "sent by RAE" being the most frequently selected option, and ranked third 16

Original page 19

for NASA technical reports with "sent by author" being the most frequently selected option. Intermediary methods ranked third for RAE reports and second for NASA reports with "routed to me by my library" being selected most frequently for both. Technical Reports -- A Comparison of the Awareness and Acquisition Responses of RAeS and AIAA Survey Participants The information-seeking behavior of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists was investigated as a Phase 1 activity of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) served as the sample population for three Phase 1 surveys. In the yellow survey (survey 2), AIAA participants were asked a series of questions about how often they (1) find out about and (2) physically obtain NASA technical reports (Pinelli, Barclay, and Kennedy, February 1994). The responses of those AIAA members who participated in survey 2 and who used NASA technical reports were compared with the responses of the RAeS respondents. Specifically, RAeS and AIAA respondents who use them were asked how they find out about NASA technical reports and how they obtain them. The findings are shown in figure 4 and figure 5. Awareness. RAeS and AIAA respondents who used NASA technical reports were asked to indicate the means by which they found out about these reports (figure 4). For presentation Journal Current Awareness Publication Sent by i AnnouncementNASA ' Cited in Publication Referred by Colleague Referred by Author Intentional Search Accident or Browsing Search Referred byLibrarian i Routed to me by my LibData Baserary ' I I 0 20 40 Percent Producer BritishAerospace i Engineers and Scientists I r-l u.s. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists m User Intermediary t I I I 60 80 100 Figure 4. How British and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Find Out About NASA technical Reports. 17

Original page 20

and discussion, the awareness choices are grouped into three categories: Producer, which includes announcement journals such as STAR; User, which includes colleagues and coworkers; and Intermediary, which includes interaction with a librarian or technical information specialist. Certain differences exist between how RAeS and AIAA respondents find out about NASA technical reports. Overall, AIAA respondents made greater use of the various means than did their RAeS counterparts. User methods dominate access choices for both groups with "cited in a publication" and "referred by a colleague" being selected most frequently by AIAA respondents and "accident or browsing" and "cited in a publication" being selected most frequently by RAeS respondents (figure 4). Producer methods ranked second for AIAA respondents with "announcement journal" being selected most frequently and ranked third for RAeS respondents with "announcement journal" being selected most frequently. Intermediary methods ranked second for RAeS members with "data base search" and "referred by librarian" being selected most frequently and ranked third for AIAA members with "data base search" being selected most frequently. Acquisition. From a list of seven sources, RAeS and AIAA respondents were asked how they actually access or obtain copies of NASA technical reports (figure 5). For presentation and discussion, the acquisition choices have been grouped into three categories: Producer, including sent by author; User, including obtained from a colleague; and Intermediary, including routed to me by my library. Sent by • NASA Sentby Author i Requestedfrom == Author I Obtained from Colleague Requested/Ordered fromLibrary from BLL/DRIC/NTIS I Routed to me Requestedby my Library/Ordered I 0 25 I Producer i BritishAerospace Engineers andScientists [_1U.S. U Aerospace Engineers and Scientists m User I I Intermediary ___ I I I 50 75 100 Percent Figure 5. How British and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Acquire NASA Technical Reports. 18

Original page 21

Differences between how RAeS and AIAA respondents acquire NASA technical reports include "sent by NASA," "sent by author," and "requested by author." Overall, User methods dominate access choices with "requested/ordered from my library" and "obtained from a colleague" being selected most frequently (figure 5). Producer methods ranked second for AIAA members with "sent by NASA" being selected most frequently and ranked third for RAeS members with "sent by author" being selected most frequently. Intermediary methods ranked second for RAeS members and third for AIAA members with "routed to me by my library" and "requested/ordered from BLL/DRIC being selected most frequently for RAeS members and "ordered from NTIS" being selected most frequently. Rating of Technical Intbrmation Products Even if they did not use them, RAeS survey participants were asked to rate the six technical information products on eight characteristics. For example, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they thought that conference-meeting papers are easy/difficult to obtain. A 1 to 5 point scale (1.0 = easy to obtain; 5.0 = difficult to obtain) was used to measure their opinions. The higher the number, the more difficult conference-meeting papers were considered by survey participants to obtain. An overall mean (X) rating was calculated for users and non-users. Conference and Meeting Papers. The ratings for conference-meeting papers are shown in table 9. The highest overall ratings were associated with (1) good/poor technical quality, (2) inexpensive/expensive, (3) easy/difficult to obtain, (4) easy/difficult to use and (5) obtaining them at a nearby/distant location. Statistically significant differences were found between users and non-users for seven of the eight characteristics -- good/poor technical quality is the exception. Overall, users rated the characteristics higher than did non-users of conference-meeting papers. Table 9. Rating of Conference-Meeting Papers by British Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Factors Being easy/difficult to obtain Being easy/difficult,to use or read Being inexpensive/expensive Being of good/poor technical quality Having comprehensive/incomplete information Being relevant/irrelevant to my work Obtaining them at a nearby/distant location Having good/bad prior experiences using them * t values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. 19 User Non-User Overall Rating (X) Rating (X) Rating (X) n = 255 n = 311 n = 566 3.55 2.95 3.24* 3.43 3.07 3.24* 3.48 3.22 3.36* 3.50 3.36 3.45 2.81 2.98 2.91" 3.51 2.36 2.95* 3.20 2.75 2.97* 3.42 2.45 2.94*

Original page 22

Journal Articles. The ratings for journal articles appear in table 10. The highest overall ratings for journal articles were associated with (1) easy/difficult to obtain, (2) inexpensive/ expensive, (3) easy/difficult to use or read, (4) good/poor technical quality, and (5) obtaining them at a nearby/distant location. Statistically significant differences were found between users and non-users for the following six characteristics: (1) easy/difficult to obtain, (2) inexpensive/expensive (3) easy/difficult to use of read, (4) obtaining them at a nearby/distant location, (5) good/bad prior experiences using them, and (6) relevant/irrelevant to my work. Overall, users rated the characteristics of journal articles higher than did non-users of journal articles with the single exception of "comprehensive/incomplete information." Table 10. Rating of Journal Articles by British Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Factors Being easy/difficult to obtain Being easy/difficult to use or read Being inexpensive/expensive Being of good/poor technical quality User Non-User Overall Rating (X) Rating (X) Rating (X) n = 248 n = 313 n = 561 4.08 3.45 3.76* 3.82 3.28 3.56* 3.77 3.56 3.66* 3.51 3.47 3.51 Having comprehensive/incomplete information 2.89 3.00 2.96 Being relevant/irrelevant to my work 3.43 2.34 2.87* Obtaining them at a nearby/distant location 3.76 3.20 3.46* Having good/bad prior experiences using them 3.67 2.64 3.15" * t values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. In-House Technical Reports. The ratings for in-house technical reports are shown in table 11. The highest overall ratings for in-house technical reports were associated with (1) inexpensive/expensive (2) obtaining them at a nearby/distant location, (3) easy/difficult to obtain, (4) relevant/irrelevant to my work, (5) having good/bad prior experiences using them. Statistically significant differences were found between users and non-users for all eight characteristics. Overall, users rated the characteristics higher than did non-user of in-house technical reports. AGARD Technical Reports. The ratings for AGARD technical reports appear in table 12. The highest overall ratings for AGARD technical reports were associated with (1) good/poor technical quality, (2) inexpensive/expensive, (3) comprehensive/incomplete information, (4) easy/difficult to use or read, (5) easy/difficult to obtain, and (6) obtaining them at a nearby/distant location. Statistically significant differences were found between users and non-users of AGARD 20

Original page 23

technical reports and all but the two following characteristics -- comprehensive/incomplete and relevant/irrelevant to my work. With the exception of "easy/difficult to obtain," users rated the characteristics higher than did non-user of AGARD technical reports. Table 11. Rating of In-house Technical Reports by British Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Factors Being easy/difficult to obtain Being easy/difficult to use or read Being inexpensive/expensive Being of good/poor technical quality Having comprehensive/incomplete information Being relevant/irrelevant to my work Obtaining them at a nearby/distant location Having good/bad prior experiences using them * t values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. User Non-User Overall Rating (X) Rating (X) Rating (X) n = 410 n = 110 n = 520 4.52 3.29 4.30* 3.85 3.17 3.75* 4.73 3.76 4.56* 3.75 3.39 3.71" 3.46 3.20 3.44* 4.42 2.70 4.14" 4.52 3.29 4.31" 4.19 2.73 3.98* Table 12. Rating of AGARD Technical Reports by British Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Factors Being easy/difficult to obtain Being easy/difficult to use or read Being inexpensive/expensive Being of good/poor technical quality Having comprehensive/incomplete information Being relevant/irrelevant to my work !Obtainingthem at a nearby/distant location Having good/bad prior experiences using them * t values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. 21 User Non-User Overall Rating _) Rating ('X) Rating (X) n = 104 n = 469 n = 563 2.66 2.69 2.91" 3.53 2.87 3.03* 3.85 3.13 3.29* 3.81 3.29 3.42* 3.20 3.04 3.08 3.73 2.17 2.55 3.69 2.67 2.89* 3.63 2.43 2.69*

Original page 24

RAE Technical Reports. The ratings for RAE technicalreports appear in table 13. The highestoverallratingsfor RAEtechnicalreportswereassociatedwith(1) inexpensive/expensive, Table 13. Rating of RAE Technical Reports by British Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Factors Being easy/difficult to obtain iBeing easy/difficult to use or read IBeing inexpensive/expensive Being of good/poor technical quality User Non-User Overall Rating ) Rating C) Rating ('X) n = 366 n = 359 n = 725 3.79 2.98 3.28* 3.69 3.09 3.31" 4.07 3.32 3.61" 3.88 3.36 3.57* Having comprehensive/incomplete information 3.57 3.11 3.30* Being relevant/irrelevant to my work 3.82 2.33 2.85* Obtaining them at a nearby/distant location 3.81 2.82 3.16" Having good/bad prior experiences using them 3.78 2.60 3.00* * t values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. (2) good/poor technical quality, (3) easy/difficult to use or read, (4) comprehensive/incomplete information, and (5) easy/difficult to obtain. Statistically significant differences were found between users and non-users of RAE technical reports on all eight characteristics. Overall, users rated the characteristics higher than did non-users of RAE technical reports. NASA Technical Reports. The ratings for NASA technical reports appear in table 14. The highest overall ratings for NASA technical reports were associated with (1) good/poor technical quality, (2) comprehensive/incomplete information, (3) inexpensive/expensive, (4) easy/difficult to read, and (5) having good/bad prior experiences using them. Statistically significant differences were found between users and non-users of NASA technical reports on all eight characteristics. Overall, users rated the characteristics higher than did non-users of NASA technical reports. 22

Original page 25

Table 14. Rating of NASA Technical Reports by British Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Factors iBeing easy/difficult to obtain Being easy/difficult to use or read Being inexpensive/expensive Being of good/poor technical quality User Non-User Overall Rating C_) Rating C_) Rating Q_) n = 368 n = 384 n = 752 3.15 2.39 2.61" 3.34 2.86 3.00* 3.46 2.93 3.10" 3.90 3.40 3.52* Having comprehensive/incomplete information 3.39 3.16 3.23* Being relevant/irrelevant to my work Obtaining them at a nearby/distant location Having good/bad prior experiences using them * t values are statistically significant at p < 0.05. 3.71 2.24 2.61" 3.47 2.42 2.69* 3.76 2.39 2.72* Correlation coefficients (Pearson's r) were calculated for the RAeS frequency of use and rating responses. The correlations compared "past month's usage" with the eight opinion ratings for each of the six technical information products. A positive and significant correlation (p <__ 0.05) was found between the use of the six information products and the following rating factors: Conference-Meeting Papers r o relevant to my work .345* o easy to use or to read .222* o good prior experiences .382* o easy to obtain .202* o inexpensive .159" o nearby location or source .128" 23 AGARD Technical Reports r o good prior experiences .307* o relevant to my work .364* o good technical quality .138" o nearby location or source .200* o easy to use or read .192" o easy to obtain .186" o inexpensive .106"

Original page 26

Journal Articles r o good prior experiences .383* o relevant to my work .338* o easy to obtain .157" o easy to use or read .109" o nearby location or source .098* In-House Technical Reports F o relevant to my work .166" o good prior experiences .160" o nearby location or source .096* o easy to obtain .202* p< 0.05. FINDINGS RAE Technical Reports r o relevant to my work .284 o nearby location or source .224* o inexpensive .234* o easy to obtain .157" o easy to read or use .164" o good technical quality .164" o comprehensive data and information .131" o good prior experiences .293* NASA Technical Reports F o easy to read or use .130" o relevant to my work .163" o nearby location or source .113" o good prior experiences .164" Readers should note that the data contained in this report reflect the responses of British aerospace engineers and scientists who were members of the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS). The results, therefore, are not generalizable to all aerospace engineers and scientists or to all British aerospace engineers and scientists. Further, the survey was conducted in October 1991 and February 1992, almost 3 years ago. The British aerospace industry has undergone significant changes in the years since the research was conducted. 1. The "average" RAeS respondent works in industry (45%) or other (32%), works as a manager (22%) or in design/development (20%), has a high national certificate/diploma (25%) or a bachelor's degree (31%), was educated (trained) as an engineer (81%), currently works as an engineer (59%), and has an average of 23 years of professional work experience. 24

Original page 27

1. A majority of the job-related projects, tasks, and problems were categorized as either design/development (31.2%) or management (21.9%). About 14% of the job-related projects, tasks, and problems were categorized as research and management (22%). 3. Most RAeS respondents (84%) worked with others (did not work alone) in completing their most important job-related project, task, or problem. The average number of people per group was 8.95. About 49% of the respondents performed engineering duties while working on their most important job-related project, task, or problem. About 45% performed management duties. 4. The mean complexity score of the most important job-related project, task, or problem was 3.68 (of a possible 5.00). The average (mean) technical uncertainty score of the most important job-related project, task, or problem was 3.20 (of a possible 5.00). 5. A statistically significant (positive) correlation (relationship) was found to exist between technical uncertainty and complexity. 6. RAeS respondents used their personal stores of information followed by discussions with colleagues inside the organization, colleagues outside the organization, literature resources in their organisation's library, and librarians/technical information specialists in securing the information needed to complete their most important job-related project, task, or problem. Almost two-thirds of the respondents did not use a librarian/technical information specialist in securing the information needed to complete their most important job-related project, task, or problem. 7. About 55% of the RAeS respondents indicated that they used their organisation's library very often; about 14% indicated they used their organisation's library sometimes and about 31% indicated they used their organisation's library not often. The average use rating was 3.42. 8. About 56% of the RAeS respondents indicated that their organisation's library was very important in performing their present professional duties. About 22% indicated that their organisation's library was neither important nor unimportant and about 23% indicated that their organisation's library was not at all important in performing their present professional duties. The average importance rating was 3.63. 9. Among RAeS respondents, in-house technical reports enjoyed the highest use rate (79%) followed by journal articles (58%) and conference-meeting papers (50%). RAE, AGARD, and NASA technical reports were used by 31%, 21%, and 23% of the RAeS survey respondents, respectively. 10. Among RAeS respondents, in-house technical reports received the highest importance rating ('X = 3.76) followed by conference-meeting papers (X = 2.49) and journal articles ('X = 2.38). The importance ratings for AGARD, RAE, and NASA reports were considerably lower. 25

Original page 28

1. In-house technical reports were used to a much greater extent than were the other technical information products (X = 16.19) followed by conference-meeting papers ('X= 3.56) and journal articles ('X = 3.06). Technical report use was less, with NASA reports being used more than RAE and AGARD reports. The median number of times that AGARD, RAE, and NASA technical reports were used in the past 6 months was 0.00, indicating that the majority of RAeS survey respondents did not use these technical information products during that period. 12. Minor differences were demonstrated in how RAeS respondents find out about RAE and NASA technical reports. User methods dominate awareness choices with "cited in a publication," "referred by a colleague," and "accident or browsing" being selected most often. Intermediary methods rank second with "data base search" and "referred by librarian" being selected most frequently. Producer methods rank third with "announcement journals" such as STAR, and "current awareness publication" being selected most frequently. 13. Differences between how RAeS respondents acquire RAE and NASA technical reports include "sent by RAE/NASA," "sent by author," and "requested by author." Overall, User methods dominate access choices with "requested/ordered from my library" and "obtained from a colleague" being selected most frequently (figure 3). Producer methods rank second for RAE technical reports with "sent by RAE" being selected most frequently and third for NASA technical reports with "sent by author" being selected most frequently. Intermediary methods rank third for RAE reports and second for NASA reports with "routed to me by my library" being selected most frequently for both. 14. RAeS respondents assigned the highest overall product ratings to in-house technical reports, followed by RAE technical reports and journal articles. They rated conference-meeting papers highest for "good/poor technical quality," journal articles highest for "easy/difficult to obtain," in-house technical reports highest for "inexpensive/expensive," AGARD technical reports highest for "good/poor technical quality," RAE technical reports highest for "inexpensive/expensive," and NASA technical reports highest for "good/poor technical quality." 15. Overall, statistically significant correlation coefficients for RAeS frequency use and rating responses were highest for "good prior experiences" (4 out of 6 products). The exceptions were in-house technical reports with "easy to read or use" and AGARD technical reports with "relevant to my work" scoring highest. CONCLUDING REMARKS This survey of British aerospace engineers and scientists offers some insight into their information-seeking behavior, the factors that influence their use of STI, and the role played by U.S. government technical reports in the diffusion of aerospace STI . This Phase 4 investigation provides results that (1) advance the development of practical theory, (2) contribute to the design and development of aerospace information systems, and (3) have practical implications for transferring the results of government funded aerospace R&D to the aerospace community. 26

Original page 29

REFERENCES Adam, R. "Pulling the Minds of Social Scientists Together: Towards a 1975 Science Information System." International Social Journal 27(3): 519-531. Allen, T.J. Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the 1977 Dissemination of Technological Information Within the R&D Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Auger, C.P. Use of Technical Reports Literature. Hamden, CT: Archon 1975 Books. Ballard, S., et. al. Innovation Through Technical and Scientific Information: 1989 Government and Industry Cooperation. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Ballard, S., et. al. Improving the Transfer and Use of Scientific and Technical 1986 Information. The Federal Role: Volume 2 - Problems and Issues in the Transfer and Use of STI. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB- 87-14923.) Berul, L. H., et. al. DoD User-Needs Study, Phase 1. Volume 1: Management Report, 1965 Conduct of the Study, and Analysis of Data. Philadelphia, PA: Auerbach Corporation. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; AD-615 501. Beyer, J.M. "The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis and H.M. Trice of Empirical Findings." Administrative Science Quarterly 27: 1982 591-622. Bikson, T.K., Scientific and Technical Information Transfer: Issues and Option. B. E. Quint, and Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. (Available from L. L. Johnson NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-85-150357; also available as Rand Note 1984 2131.) Branscomb, L.G. "America's Emerging Technology Policy." Minerva 30:3 1992 (August): 317-336. 27

Original page 30

Branscomb, L.G. "Toward a U.S. Technology Policy." Issues in Science and 1991 Technology 7:4 (Fall): 50-55. David, P.A. "Technology Diffusion, Public Policy, and Industrial 1986 Competitiveness." In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. R. Landau and N. Rosenberg, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. DJB Associates, The Economic Aspects of the Information System: A Research 1993 Study for the Royal Society. British Library R&D Report 6121. London: The Royal Society. (Available from The British Library, The British Thesis Service, Document Supply Center, Boston Spa, England.) Eveland, J.D. Scientific and Technical Information Exchange: Issues and 1987 Findings. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. (Not available from NTIS.) Fry, B.M. Library Organization and Management of Technical Reports 1953 Literature. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. Gibb, J. M. and Better Fate for the Grey, or Non-Conventional, Literature." Journal E. Phillips of Communication Studies 1: 225-234. 1979 Godfrey, L. E. and Dictionary of Report Series Codes. (2nd ed.) NY: Special Libraries H.F. Redman Association. 1973 Goldhor, R. S. and "University-to-Industry Advanced Technology Transfer: A Case R. T. Lund Study." Research Policy 12: 121-152. 1983 Mathes, J. C. and Designing Technical Reports. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merill. D. W. Stevenson 1976 McClure, C.R. "The Federal Technical Report Literature: Research Needs and 1988 Issues." Government Information Quarterly. 5(1): 27-44. McGowan, R. P. and "Strategies for Information Management: The Administrator's S. Loveless Perspective." Public AdministrationReview 41(3): 331-339. 1981 28

Original page 31

Mowery, D.C. "Economic Theory and Government Technology Policy." Policy 1983 Sciences 16: 27-43. Mowery, D. C. and "The Influence of Market Demand Upon Innovation: A Critical N. Rosenberg Review of Some Recent Empirical Studies." Research Policy 1979 8(2): 102-153. National Academy Scientific and Technical Communication: A Pressing National of Sciences - Problem and Recommendations for Its Solution. Report by the National Academy Committee on Scientific and Technical Communication. of Engineering Washington, DC: National Academy Sciences; AKA the SATCOM 1969 Report. Picken, D.P. The Organization and Use of Library and Information Services in 1988 the Aerospace Industry With Particular Emphasis on the United Kingdom. Master's Dissertation, University of Wales. Pinelli, T.E. "The Information-Seeking Habits and Practices of Engineers." 1991 Science and Technology Librar&s 11(3): 5-25. Pinelli, T.E. The Relationship Between the Use of U.S. Government Technical 1991 Reports by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists and Selected Institutional and Sociometric Variables. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM- 102774, January. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; N9118898.) Pinelli, T.E., The Use of Selected Information Products and Services By U.S. R. O. Barclay, and Aerospace Engineers and Scientbts. Washington, DC: National J. M. Kennedy Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-109022, 1994 February. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, 94N24649.) Pinelli, T. E. and Source Selection and lnformation Use by U.S.Aerospace Engineers N. A. Glassman and Scientists: Results of a Telephone Survey. Washington, DC: 1992 National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM- 107658, September. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA, 92N33299.) Pinelli, T.E., "The NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge diffusion Research J. M. Kennedy, and Project." Government Information Quarterly 8(2): 219-233. R. O. Barclay 1991 29

Original page 32

Pinelli, T.E., "Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research." World Aerospace J. M. Kennedy, Technology '91: The International Review of Aerospace Design R. O. Barclay, and Development 1(1): 31-34. and T. F. White 1991 Pinelli, T.E., Engineering Work and Information Use in Aerospace: Results of J. M. Kennedy, and a Telephone Survey. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and T. F. White Space Administration. NASA TM-107673, October. (Available 1992 from NTIS, Springfield, VA; 92N34233.) President's Special Scientific and Technological Communication in the Government. Assistant for Science Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; AKA the Crawford and Technology Report. 1962 Raitt, D.I. The Communication and Information-Seeking and Use Habits of 1984 Scientists and Engineers in International Organizations Based in Eueopean National Aerospace Research Establishments. Ph.D. Diss., Loughborough University of Technology. (Available from NASA CASI; 88N71067.) Redman, H.F. "Technical Reports: Problems and Predictions." Arizona Librarian 1965/1966 23: 11-17. Roberts, E.B. "Strategies for Improving Research Utilization." Technology and A. L. Frohman Review 80 (March/April): 32-39. 1978 Rohde, Nancy F. "Information Needs." In Advances in Librarianship, Vol. 14. W. 1986 Simonton, ed. NY: Academic Press, 49-73. Ronco, P. G., et. al. Characteristics of TechnicalReports That Affect Reader Behavior: 1964 A Review of the Literature. Boston, MA: Tufts University, Institute for Psychological Research. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA PB-169 409.) Royal Society, The Scientific, Technical, and Medical Information System in the 1993 UK. British Library R&D Report 6123. London: The Royal Society, The British Library, The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers. (Available from The Royal Society, London, ISBN 0 85403 477 3.) 30

Original page 33

Shuchman, H.L. Information Transfer in Engineering. Glastonbury, CT: The 1981 Futures Group. Smith, R.S. "Interaction Within the Technical Report Community." Science 1981 and Technology Librar&s 1(4): 5-18. Subramanyam, K. Scientific and Technical Information Resources. NY: Marcel 1981 Dekker. U.S. Department Glossary of Information Handling. Defense Logistics Agency, of Defense Defense Documentation Center. Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA. 1964 Williams, F. and Technology Transfer: A Communication Perspective. Newbury D. V. Gibson Park, CA: Sage Publications. 1990 31

Original page 34

APPENDIX A: PROJECT FACT SHEET NASA/DoD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT The process of producing, transferring, and using scientific and technical information (STI), which is an essential part of aerospace research and development (R&D), can be defined as Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion. Studies tell us that timely access to STI can increase productivity and innovation and help aerospace engineers and scientists maintain and improve their professional skills. These same studies indicate, however, that we know little about aerospace knowledge diffusion or about how aerospace engineers and scientists find and use STI. To learn more about this process, we have organized a research project to study knowledge diffusion. Sponsored by NASA and the Department of Defense (DoD), the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project is being conducted by researchers at the NASA Langley Research Center, the Indiana University Center for Survey Research, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. This research is endorsed by several aerospace professional societies including the AIAA, RAeS, and DGLR and has been sanctioned by the AGARD and AIAA Technical Information Panels. This 4-phase project is providing descriptive and analytical data about the flow of STI at the individual, organizational, national, and international levels. It is examining both the channels used to communicate STI and the social system of the aerospace knowledge diffusion process. Phase 1 investigates the information-seeking habits and practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, in particular their use of government-funded aerospace STI. Phase 2 examines the industry-government interface and emphasizes the role of the information intermediary in the knowledge diffusion process. Phase 3 concerns the academicgovernment interface and emphasizes the information intermediary-faculty-student interface. Phase 4 explores the information-seeking behaviors of non-U.S, aerospace engineers and scientists from Western European nations, India, Israel, Japan, and the former Soviet Union. The results of this research project will help us to understand the flow of STI at the individual, organizational, national, and international levels. The findings can be used to identify and correct deficiencies, to improve access and use, to plan new aerospace STI systems, and should provide useful information to R&D managers, information managers, and others concerned with improving access to and utilization of STI. These results will contribute to increasing productivity and to improving and maintaining the professional competence of aerospace engineers and scientists. The results of our research are being shared freely with those who participate in the study. Dr. Thomas E. Pinelli Dr. John M. Kennedy Ms. Rebecca O. Barclay Electronic Information Age, Inc. Mail Stop 180A Center for Survey Research NASA Langley Research Center Indiana University 462 Washington Street Hampton, VA 23665 Bloomington, IN 47405 Portsmouth, VA 23704 (804) 864-2491 (812) 855-2573 (804) 399-5666 Fax (804) 864-8311 Fax (812) 855-2818 Fax (804) 465-0828 tompin@teb.larc.nasa.gov kennedy@isrmail.soc.indiana.edu barclay@infi.net 32

Original page 35

APPENDIX B: RAeS QUESTIONNAIRE .<._'. : :. 33

Original page 36

1. Are you a member of e Branch of the Royal Aeronautical Society? (Please circle a number.) 1 Yes 2 No 2. During the past season, how often did you attend: (Please indicate how many times.) RAeS Conferences: RAeS Lectures: RAeS Courses: Times at Hamilton Place Times at Hamilton Place Times at Hamilton Place Times at a Branch Times at a Branch Times at a Branch 3. If applicable, please provide the name of the Branch where you most recently attended a Conference, Lecture, or Course in the past season. Branch most recently attended for a RAeS Conference: Branch most recently attended for a RAeS Lecture: Branch most recently attended for a RAeS Course: 4. If you did not attend a RAeS Conference, Lecture, or Course at a Branch site in the past six months, what reasons did you have for not attending? (Please circle ALL numbers that apply.) was not interested in any topics find the lecture programmes uninteresting live too far from a Branch to attend work too far from a Branch to attend Other (Please specify.) Yes No 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 5. About how far away do you live from the nearest Branch? __ miles 6. During the past year, how many times did you use the RAeS library? Times (If you did not use the RAeS library, please TICK here __ and skip to Q. 10.) 7. When you used the RAeS library over the past year, was the information you wanted: (Please circle number for each.) Yes No Technical 1 2 Commercial 1 2 General 1 2 Historical 1 2 34

Original page 37

1. If you circled more than one "yes" on Q. 7, which did you use most often? (Please circle ONLY ONE number.) 1 Technical 3 General 2 Commercial 4 Historical 9. When you use the RAeS library, do you normally use: (Please circle number for each.) Yes N_._o Loan Material 1 2 Photocopies 1 2 10. Do you think that the RAeS provides an adequate information service? (Please circle a number.) 1 Yes 2 No 11 How would you like to see it improved? 1 1. Should the RAeS develop a computerized data centre that would allow access to the RAeS library holdings by modem? (Please circle a number.) 1 Yes 2 No The following questions are about the RAeS (Please circle a number for each.) publication AEROSPACE. Yes No 12. Do you look at AEROSPACE when seeking career opportunities? 1 2 13. Do you think AEROSPACE should contain a regular page 1 2 on education and training? 14. Do you think the RAeS should publish more journals covering 1 2 sectors of specialist aerospace subjects? 15. Do AEROSPACE articles influence your own buying decisions? 1 2 16. Do AEROSPACE articles help you do your job better? 1 2 17. In your current position, do you: 1. Make procurement decisions? 2. Influence procurement decisions? 1 2 1 2 18. As a RAeS member, would you be interested in acting as a mentor for young persons at nearby schools or work? (Please circle a number.) 1 Yes 2 No 35

Original page 38

1. Are you registered with the Engineering Council as: (Please circle a number.) Yes No Chartered Engineer 1 2 Incorporated Engineer 1 2 Engineering Technician 1 2 (If you are RETIRED, please TICK here __ and skip to the top of page 10.) The following questions concern the most important TECHNICAL project, task, or problem you have worked on in the past six months. (If you are not involved with technical projects, tasks, or problems, please TICK here __ and skip to the top of page 10.) 20. Thinking of the most important job-related project, task, or problem you have worked on in the past six months, which category _ describes this work? (Please tick _ ONE box.) [] Educational (e.g., for professional development or preparation of a lecture) [] Research (either basic or applied) [] Design [] Development [] Manufacturing [] Production [] Computer applications [] Management (e.g., planning, budgeting, and managing research) [] Other (Please specify.) 21. Considering the time you spent on this project only, how would you describe the kinds of duties you performed while working on the project in terms of engineering, science, and management? (Please enter amounts as percentages that total 100%.) __% Engineering __% Science __% Management __% Other (Please describe.) 22. How would you describe the overall complexity of the technical project, task, or problem you categorised in Q. 20? (Please circle a number.) Very simple 1 2 3 4 5 Very complex 23. How would you rate the amount of technical uncertainty that you faced when you started the technical project, task, or problem categorised in Q. 20? (Please circle a number.) Little uncertainty 1 2 3 4 5 Great uncertainty 36

Original page 39

1. While you were involved in the technical project, task, or problem, did you work with others, or did you work alone? (Please circle a number.) 1 With others . With about holN many other persons? 2 Alone 25. What steps did you follow to get the information you needed for this project, task, or problem? (Please sequence these items (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and put an X beside the steps you did not use.) Sequence __ Used my personal store of technical information, including sources I keep in my office __ Spoke with co-workers or people inside my organisation __ Spoke with colleagues outside my organisation __ Spoke with a librarian or technical information specialist Used literature resources (e.g., conference papers, journals, technical reports) found in my organisation's library (If you used none of the above steps, please TICK here_.) The following questions concern your use of information sources. 26. Which of the following information sources do you use in performing your present professional duties? (Please circle a number for each source.) Yes Conference/Meeting Papers 1 Journal Articles 1 In-House Technical Reports 1 AGARD Technical Reports 1 RAE Technical Reports 1 NASA Technical Reports 1 N__qo 2 2 2 2 2 2 27. In terms of performing your present professional duties, how important is each of the following sources? (Please circle a number for each sx)urce.) Not at All Very Important Important Conference/Meeting Papers 1 Journal Articles 1 In-House Technical Reports 1 AGARD Technical Reports 1 RAE Technical Reports 1 NASA Technical Reports 1 3"7 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

Original page 40

1. In the past six months, approximately how many times did you use CONFERENCE/MEETING PAPERS in performing your present professional duties? _Times in the past six months 29. Even if you don't use them, please rate ,ONFERENCE/MEETING PAPERS on each of the following. (Please circle a number for each rating.) Physically, they are easy to obtain 1 2 3 4 5 Physically, they are difficult to obtain They are easy to read or to use 1 2 3 4 5 They are difficult to read or to use They are cost free 1 2 3 4 5 They are costly They are of good technical quality 1 2 3 4 5 They are of poor technical quality They have complete data 1 2 3 4 5 They have incomplete data and and information information They are relevant to my work 1 2 3 4 5 They are irrelevant to my work They can be obtained at a 1 2 3 4 5 They must be obtained from a nearby location or source distant location or source I've had good prior experience 1 2 3 4 5 I've had poor prior experience using them using them 30. In the past six months, approximately how many times did you use _ LTJ.J.E in performing your present professional duties? __ Times in the past six months 31. Even if you don't use them, please rate JOURNAL ARTICLES on each of the following. (Please circle a number for each rating.) Physically, they are easy to obtain 1 2 3 4 5 Physically, they are difficult to obtain They are easy to read or to use 1 2 3 4 5 They are difficult to read or to use They are cost free 1 2 3 4 5 They are costly They are of good technical quality 1 2 3 4 5 They are of poor technical quality They have complete data 1 2 3 4 5 They have incomplete data and and information information They are relevant to my work 1 2 3 4 5 They are irrelevant to my work They can be obtained at a 1 2 3 4 5 They must be obtained from a nearby location or source distant location or source I've had good prior experience 1 2 3 4 5 I've had poor prior experience using them using them 32. In the past six months, approximately how many times did you use NASA TECHNICAL REPORTS in performing your present professional duties? __ Times in the past six months 38

Original page 41

1. Even if you don't use them, please rate _ _ _ on each of the following. (Please circle a number for each ratzng.} Physically, they are easy to obtain 1 2 3 4 5 Physically, they are difficult to obtain They are easy to read or to use 1 2 3 4 5 They are difficult to read or to use They are cost free 1 2 3 4 5 They are costly They are of good technical quality 1 2 3 4 5 They are of poor technical quality They have complete data 1 2 3 4 5 They have incomplete data and and information information They are relevant to my work 1 2 3 4 5 They are irrelevant to my work They can be obtained at a 1 2 nearby location or source I've had good prior experience 1 2 using them 3 4 5 They must be obtained from a distant location or source 3 4 5 I've had poor prior experience using them 34. How often do you find out about NASA TECHNICAL REPORTS from each of these sources? (Please circle a number for each so-o-u-rce.) Bibliographic database search Announcement journal (e.g., STAR) Current awareness publication (e.g., SCAN) Cited in a report/journal/conference paper Referred to me by colleague Referred to me by librarian Routed to me by library By intentional search of library resources BoYaccidenothrer materialt,by browsing, or looking NASA informed me The author informed me Other Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 35. How often do you usually obtain physical access to _ TECHNICAL REPORTS from each of these sources? (Please circle a number for each source.) NASA sends them to me Referred to me by the author The author sends them to me I request/order them from my library I request/order them from British Library Lending Division (BLLD) I request/order them from Defense Research Information Center (DRIC) I get them from a colleague They are routed to me by my library 39 Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Original page 42

1. In the past six months, approximately how many times did you use IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL REPORTS in performing your present professional duties? _Times in the past six months 37. Even if you don't use them, please rate IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL REPORTS on each of the following. (Please circle a number for each rating.) Physically, they are easy to obtain 1 They are easy to read or to use 1 They are cost free 1 They are of good technical quality 1 They have complete data 1 and information They are relevant to my work 1 They can be obtained at a 1 nearby location or source I've had good prior experience 1 using them 38. In the past six months, approximately 2 3 4 5 Physically, they are difficult to obtain 2 3 4 5 They are difficult to read or to use 2 3 4 5 They are costly 2 3 4 5 They are of poor technical quality 2 3 4 5 They have incomplete data and information 2 3 4 5 They are irrelevant to my work 2 3 4 5 They must be obtained from a distant location or source 2 3 4 5 I've had poor prior experience using them how many times did you use AGARD REPORTS in performing your present professional duties? __ Times in the past six months 39. Even if you don't use them, please rate AGARD _ BEP__O_B_Ton each of the following. (Please circle a number for each rating.) Physically, they are easy to obtain 1 They are easy to read or to use 1 They are cost free 1 They are of good technical quality 1 They have complete data 1 and information They are relevant to my work 1 They can be obtained at a 1 nearby location or source I've had good prior experience 1 using them 2 3 4 5 Physically, they are difficult to obtain 2 3 4 5 They are difficult to read or to use 2 3 4 5 They are costly 2 3 4 5 They are of poor technical quality 2 3 4 5 They have incomplete data and information 2 3 4 5 They are irrelevant to my work 2 3 4 5 They must be obtained from a distant location or source 2 3 4 5 I've had poor prior experience using them 4O

Original page 43

1. In the past six months, approximately how many times did you use RAE TECHNICAL REPORTS in performing your present Professional duties? __ Times in the past six months 41. Even if you don't use them, please rate RAE TECHNICAL REPORTS on each of the following. (Please circle a number for each rating.) Physically, they are easy to obtain 1 2 3 4 5 Physically, they are difficult to obtain They are easy to read or to use 1 2 3 4 5 They are difficult to read or to use They are cost free 1 2 3 4 5 They are costly They are of good technical quality 1 2 3 4 5 They are of poor technical quality They have complete data 1 2 3 4 5 They have incomplete data and and information information They are relevant to my work I 2 3 4 5 They are irrelevant to my work They can be obtained at a I 2 3 4 5 They must be obtained from a nearby location or source distant location or source l've had good prior experience I 2 3 4 5 l've had poor prior experience using them using them 42. How often do you find out about RAE TECHNICAL REPORTS from each of these sources? (Please circle a number for each source.) Bibliographic database search Announcement journal (e.g., STAR) Current awareness publication (e.g., DRA) Cited in a report/journal/conference paper Referred to me by colleague Referred to me by librarian Routed to me by library By intentional search of library resources By accident, by browsing, or looking for other material The RAE informed me The author informed me Other 4! Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 .3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 I 2 3 4 I 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Original page 44

1. How often do you usually obtain physical access to RAE TECHNICAL REPORTS from each of these sources? (Please circle a number for each source.) RAE sends them to me The author sends them to me request them from the author request/order them from my library request/order them from BLLD request/order them from DRIC get them from a colleague They are routed to me by my library Frequently Sometimes Seldom 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 These data will help us determine what use is made of libraries and technical information centres and services, and how information scientists. technology is used by aerospace engineers and 44. Does your organisation have a library and/or technical information centre? (Please circle a number.) 1 Yes _ 45. How far are you from it? miles 2 No ( If No, skip to Q. 48.) 46. In the past six months, about how often did you use your organisation's library/technical information centre? (Please circle a number.) Not often 1 2 3 4 5 Very often 47. In terms of performing your present professional duties, how important is your organisation's library/technical information centre? (Please circle a number.) Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 Very important 48. In the past year, did you use any of the following external libraries to perform your present professional duties? (Please circle a number for each.) Yes No RAeS library Public library University or other school library Other library (Please specify.) 1 2 1 2 1 2 42

Original page 45

These last few questions concern your background and professional training. 49. What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Please circle ONLY ONE number.) 1 No degree 2 Ordinary national certificate 3 Higher national certificate 4 Ordinary national diploma 5 Higher national diploma 6 Bachelor's degree 7 Master's degree 8 Doctorate 9 Postdoctorate 10 Licence (Please specify.) 50. What is your primary professional duty? (Please circle ONLY ONE number.) 1 Academic/teaching (may include research) 2 Research 3 Administrative/management in industry 4 Administrative/management in government, non-profit 5 Design/development 6 Manufacturing/production 7 Marketing/sales 8 Service/maintenance 9 Private consultant 10 Other 51. What is the type of organisation where you work? (Please circle ONLY ONE number.) 1 Academic 4 Non-profit 2 Government 5 Retired or unemployed 3 Industry 6 Other 52. Are you trained as: (Please circle a number.) 1 An engineer 2 Ascientist 3 Other 53. Would your present professional duties be classified as: (Please circle a number.) 1 An engineer 2 A scientist 3 Other 54. How many years of professional work experience in aerospace do you have? Years in aerospace 55. Do you currently have a pilot's licence? (Please circle a number.) 1 Yes IP 56. How many flying hours do you have?__ hours 2 No (If No, skip to Q. 583 57. For what aircraft are you licenced? 43 OVER -

Original page 46

1. Are you a qualified engineer? (Please circle a number.) 1 Yes 2 No (If No, skip to Q. 60.) 59. Are you: (Please circle a number.) An aircraft maintenance engineer Yes No 1 2 Licenced as an aircraft maintenance engineer 1 2 A flight engineer Licenced as a flight engineer 1 2 1 2 60. What is your principal RAeS interest group? (Please circle QNL ONE number.) 1 Aeromarine (joint group with SUT and RINA) 2 Aerodynamics 3 Air Law 4 Air Transport 5 Airworthiness and Maintenance 6 Aviation Medicine 7 Avionics Systems 8 Flight Simulation 9 Graduates, Young Technicians and Students 10 Guided Flight 11 Historical 12 Human-Powered Aircraft 13 Light Aeroplanes 14 Management Studies 15 Mechanical and Structural 16 Propulsion 17 Rotorcraft 18 Space 19 Test Pilots 61. Which of the following best characterizes your area of work or application of your work? (Please circle ONLY ONE number.) 1 Aeronautics 5 Mathematics & Computer Sciences 2 Astronautics 6 Materials&Chemistry 3 Engineering 7 Physics 4 Space Sciences 8 Other 62. Is any of your work funded by the British Government? (Please circle a number.) 1 Yes 2 No 63. Who supplies the largest proportion (Please circle a number.) of funds for your current research/project(s)? 1 British Government 4 Non-profit 2 Private Industry 5 Do not receive research funds 3 Educational Institution 6 Other Thank you for your time and cooperation. 44

Original page 47

Original page 48

Original page 49

Original page 50

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE FormApproved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reportingburdenfor this collectionof informationis estimatedto average1hour per response,includingthe time for reviewinginstructons. searchng axst ngdata sources, gatheringandmaico ectonof informntaiationinngt,inhe data neecludingsuggestionsded,andcompletingand reviefor reducngthisburdenwi,tongthe collectioWashingtonHeadqnofinfourmartersatioServn,Sendcoices.Direcmmentoratetsregardifor Inforngthis burmationOperatiodenestmate or ansandRnyeportsothe,Lras15pectoJeffersonfthis Davis Highway,Suite 1204, Arlington,VA 22202-4302.and to the Officeof Managementand Budget, PaperworkReductionProject (0704-0188), Washington,DC 20503. AGENCY USE ONLY(Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE ,i I May 1994 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Technical Memorandum 5. FUNDING NUMBERS The Technical Communications Practices of British Aerospace Engineers and Scientists: Results of the Phase 4 RAeS Mail Survey* WU 505-90 ,6. AUTHOR(S) Thomas E. Pinelli, Rebecca O. Barclay, and John M. Kennedy 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23681-0001 REPORTNUMBER 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546-0001 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AGENCYREPORTNUMBER NASA TM-109098 *Report number 25 under the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Thomas E. Pinelli: Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA; Rebecca O. Barclay: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY; John M. Kennedy: Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Unclassified-Unlimited Subject Category 82 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded research and development (R&D) are transferred to the U.S. aerospace industry. However, little is known about this information product in terms of its actual use, importance, and value in the transfer of federally funded R&:D. To help establish a body of knowledge, the U.S. government technical report is being investigated as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. In this report, we summarize the literature on technical reports and provide a model that depicts the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D via the U.S. government technical report. We present results from our investigation of aerospace knowledge diffusion vis-a-vis the U.S. government technical report, and present the results of research that investigated aerospace knowledge diffusion vis-a-vis the technical communications practices of British aerospace engineers and scientists. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Knowledge diffusion; British aerospace engineers and scientists; Information use; 45 U.S. government technical reports 16. PRICE CODE A03 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATIOI_ 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATIO_ 20. LIMITATION OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE Unclassified Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 OF ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Standard Form 298(Rev. 2-89) Prescribedby ANSI Std. Z39-18 298-102

Original page 51

Original page 52

NationalAeronauticsand Space Administration LangleyResearchCenter Mail Code 180 Hampton, VA 23681-00001 Official Business Penalty for Private Use, $300 3 1176 01408 7788 BULKRATE POSTAGE& FEESPAID NASA PermitNo.G-27 NASATechnical